ED 343 773 RC Ole 632 · 2014. 4. 9. · DOCUMEM RESUME ED 343 773 RC Ole 632 AUTHOR Hatch, John...

DOCUMEM RESUME

ED 343 773 RC Ole 632

AUTHOR Hatch, JohnTITLE American Indian and Alaska Native Adult Education and

Vocational Training Programs: Historical Beginnings,Present Conditions and Future Directions.

SPONS AGENCY Department of EducAtion, Washington, DC. IndianNations At Risk Tagk Force.

PUB DATE 91

NOTE 24p.; In: Indian.Nations At Risk Task ForceCommissioned Papers. See RC 018 612. Data in Figure 1(page 10) are missing.

PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070)

EDPS PRICE MFO1/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Adult Basic Education; *Adult Vocational Education;

*American Indian Education; Educational History;*Educational Legislation; Federal Aid; *FederalIndian Relationship; Federal Legislation; *FinancialSupport

IDENTIFIERS Bureau of Indian Affairs; Tribally ControlledEducation

ABSTRACTThe success of Native adult education and vocational

training programs is linked to the economic health of Nativecommunities. Reports since 1923 document the failure of FederalGovernment programs in producing educated Native adults and theinadequacy of adult education e.elivery systems. An array of federallegislation has attempted to increase educational and vocationalopportunities for Native adults. The Adult Education Act and the CarlD. Perkins Vocational Education Act provide funds to the states tooperate adult educational and vocational training programs. Directfunding is provided to Native communities for program development bythe Indian Education Act, the Indian and Hawaiian Natives VocationalEducation Program, the Joint Training Partnership Act, the FamilySupport Act, and several Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programs.However, both the BIA and the Department of Education appear caughtbetween serving the needs of Native communities and giving way tofederal demands to reduce expenditures. In addition, neither agencyhas been able to resolve issues of sovereignty and self-determinationwith the tribal governments that they serve. Recommendations includethe development of a national database on Native demographic data,changing the Indian Priority System to ensure consultation withNative governments, the development of model Native adult educationprograms, funding and technical assistance for tribal educationdepartments, requiring the B1A to comply with federal law on fundingof Native vocational education, and reworking the Indian EducationAct 7nt formula. This paper contains 20 references. (SV)

***********X*********W*w********w*************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

C

ceci,

American Indian and Alaska NativeAdult Education and Vocational Training Programs:

Historical Beginnings, Present Conditionsand Future Directions

John Hatch

IntroductionThere is a growing consensus that the success

of Native adult education and vocational trainingprograms is tied to the economic health of Nativecommunities. Problems ofilliteracy and unemploy-ment are interrelated and cannot be solved inisolation. They are simply symptoms of the sameillness poverty. One begets the other creating anunending cycle of despair that robs Nativefamilies, communities and governments of theirculture, traditions and dignity. No single agency orlegislative initiative has the power to alter thesituation. Reform will occur only after tribal, stateand federal agencies combine resources to stimu-late Native econ aies and provide adequate fundsfor the operation of adult training and educationprograms. Such a multi-frontal assault will im-prove employment opportunities, inspire Nativeadults to obtain employment skills and provideNative governments and enterprises with a bettereducated work force. All of which will move Nativecommunities further down the road to self-deter-mination.

This paper will survey the hist4rical relation-ship be'cween the United States Government andNative communities that led to the development ofNative adult basic education and vocational train-ing programs. Through government and privatereports spanning more than 150 years, it will docu-ment the often tragic consequences of that relation-ship. It will go on to identify current federal, stateand Native programs designed to overcome pastand present failures, and it will provide specificrecommendations for change voined by Native com-munity leaders, educators, and parents at meet-ings held by the Indian Nations At Risk TaskForce. But prior to that I want to relay the story ofWilliam "Billy" Mastaw, a 35-year-old Chippewafrom a small reservation in Michigan's rural UpperPeninsula.

Billy obtained a high school equivalencydiploma in June 1990 from the Sault Ste. MarieTribe of Chippewa Indians' federally funded Adult

1.11. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOffice of Edvcatanal Research and improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

Tnit document his been reproduced Aireceived Doe ine person or organisationonginatiny it

(3 Minor changes hay* Ot in mad* to improvereproduction Quality

Points of vie* co opinion, Wiled in this docu.mint do not necessarily represent officialOER1 position or policy

Learning Center. Three years earlier, he came tothe Center after the Michigan Department of So-cial Services refused to continue his general assis-tance payments unless he enrolled in an adulteducation program.

Billy did not like the idea that he was againbeing forced to attend school. He thought he hadrid himself of that annoyance 14 years ago whenhe left the public school system in the ninth grade.But if Billy could have looked past his distaste overthe referral, he would have seen that not all waswell with his life. His days were filled with longstretches of nothing to do. He did not have a job ora car. He had no one to share his thoughts, hisneeds and his desires. He was bored and he waslonely, and he often felt out of place. And whenthings got really bad, Billy got drunk. Since leavingschool he had developed a nasty drug and alcoholhabit, experienced one failed marriage, spent smallstretches of time in jail and been unemployed orunderemployed most of his adult life. Lacking apermanent address, he often spent nights sleepingon the living room couch of his brother's or somefriend's home.

The Center's diagnostic testing program placedBilly at an eighth grade level for reading, mathe-matics and English. Based on his past experiencewithin educational institutions, hi irritation overthe forced referral, and his on-going substanceabuse, graduation was not part of his expectations.The first night he attended the program, he walkedinto the classroom, sat at a desk, pulled out a penciland glared at the teacher and fellow students. Hewas ready to suffer the program until his cas3worker turned attention to anothet client, allowingBilly to walk away unnoticed.

Billy's attitude began to change after he pickedup on the differences be%ween the Center and thepublic school he had left years ago. For the firsttime he was not the only dark face in the crowd. Atthe Center he was not the only student from thereservation he was part of a majority. No warhoops or Indian jokes were likely to come from thiscrowd he knew the other students: he had grown

BEST CeriV AVAILASLE 1 2

1, ' UR/ a. 1-1 . .1.

Indians &lotions At Risk: Solutions for the 1990s

up along side many of them. He knew theirparents, had hung arolind with some of theirbrothers, and had dated some of their sisters. Theydressed like him. They talked like him. Most hadenrolled at the Center because they had en-countered problems at tne public school just likehim. The teachers were also different. It wasn'tthat they were any more caring than those he hadencountered before, but they were more patient,more understanding. They allowed him to work athis own pace. The teachers talked to him about thefuture and the possibilities that would open afterhe obtained a high school equivalency diploma. Hebegan to like the idea of being a student and lookedforward to each class.

After taking and passing his first GeneralEducation Development (GED) test, Billy gainedconfidence in his ability to succeed. He becamemotivated. He joined a tribal substance abuseprevention program. His school attendance in-creased. During the next two years he studied hardand passed all five GED tests. He then enrolled ina two-year Indian community college (Bay MillsCommunity College), and as of this writing he hascompleted the first year of a two-year business(Agree. Billy's success is far from complete. Inorder to fully leave his past behind, he must com-plete his college education, maintain his sobriety,and obtain self-sustaining employment. Difficultenough for anyone to achieve, these goals are moreelusive for someone who was raised in a dysfunc-tional and often traumatic environment, and whoft.ontinues to reside in a community shattered fromthe effects of a broken culture.

Large segments of America's Native com-munities are adrift, like Billy, in a world in whichthey can not compete. Native adults and childrenwithin these communities are at risk. At stake isthe quality of life for current and future genera-tions of American Indian and Alaska Natives.Education and training programs must be tied toemployment opportunities. Otherwise Nativeadults will continue to base their future expecta-tions on the past realities of meaningless, hwpaying employment. It is my hope that this paperwill motivate policy makers to investigate moredeeply into the harsh realities facing Nativepeople. Such exploration will surely uncover newstrategies to stimulate Native economies and tobetter educational servicesputting an end to thetragic plight of America's Native communities.

Historical BeginningsStanding before the August 20, 1990, hearing

of the Indian Nations At Risk Task Force in Bill-ings, Montana, a Native educator stated: "As In-

2

dian people...we work with [the) dream and [the)goal that some day our tribal members will becomeself-sufficient, using education as a tool toachieve...Indian self-determination.170 (INARTask Force Hearing, Billings, MT, Baily, 90, p. 1)The task force had heard the statement before,rephrased and retold, by Native communityleaders, teachers, and parents at similar hearingsacross the country.

In Seattle, Washington, Henry Deleve Chaiaie,director of adult education for the United Indiansof All Tribes Foundation stated: 'Many adultscome into our (program)...because they want tochange their circumstances...these people are com-ing in from alcohol and drug treatment centers...weshow them how they can be successful.170 (INARTask Force Hearing, 90)

In Juneau, Alaska, Sandy Armstrong, directorof education for the Fairbanks Native Associationstated that teachers of Natives should work to gainthe trust of Native students by telling them that:'You are no longer invisible. I can see you. I see yourvalue and your potential. I see your problems. Icare.170 (INAR Task Force Hearing, 90)

At similar hearings in Minnesota, Arizona,North Carolina and California, others spoke withanger, frustration and concern and added theirvoices to the chorus of voices that have declaredNative adult and vocational education a failure.The extent of that failure has been documented asfar back as 1923 when Secretary of the InteriorHubert Work appointed the Committee of OneHundred to quell public indignation over a planto divest the Rio Grand Pueblos of land (Dennis,1977, p. 52). The Committee was mainly concernedwith the health and sanitation of medical facilitiesserving Native communities, but it also reported,circuitously, that educators serving Native com-munities were not competent, and that Nativeschool facilities were inadequate. The committeerequested additional federal appropriations to rec-tify the situation (Fey, 1970, p. 131).

The report spurred the Bureau of Indian Af-fairs (BIA) to push for higher enrollment of Nativechildren in public, non-reservation schools, and torevise the curriculum of federal Native schools tomatch more closely the offerings of the publicschool system. Reservation day schools were ex-tended to include sixth grade, and nonreservqtionboarding school curriculum was expanded . in-clude high school courses. The report focusedpublic debate, and for the first time the majority ofa national symposium publicly deplored acceptedefforts to destroy Native culture.

Five years later, the Meriam AssociatesIttport (1928) refined the debate as it examined

Saw*. AO 1 1MVI 111,,, dr1.10. e* 1.104.- , I ' I n - ma, , .

Adult and Vocational Education

the economic, social, and educational conditions ofNative Americans. The report noted that thegreatest need involving Native education was achange in point of view. It promoted a strengthen-ing of the Native family and social structure, andit criticized the boarding school system thatseparated students from parents. It identified anddenounced ineffective teaching methods,dilapidated housing facilities, and staff cruelties tostudents. It questioned the judgement of allowinga Washington office to prescribe uniform cr. rsesof study and examination when there was an ob-vious need to develop classroom curriculum to fitthe abilities, interests and goals of the reservationbound Natives.

The report addressed adult education by can-didly stating that family education was a means ofbettering the existence of Native people, and itrecommended that Native day schools be designedas community centers for reaching Native adultsas well as children. It noted that ua genuine educa-tion program will have to comprise the adults ofthe community as well as the children" (MeriamAssociates Report, 1928, p. 349).

From the 1930s on, the federal governmentstruggled to determine the best method of provid-ing educational services to Native communities.Mindful of the growing awareness that the destruc-tion of Native culture and traditions brought littlebut despair and frustration to Netive communities,the federal government enacted a series of policiesthat, for a short time, appeared to benefit Nativecommunities. The boarding school concept wusrethought. Additional day schools were built toallow a greater number of Native children toremain at home with their families. Qualifiededucation personnel were sought to instruct atNative schools, bilingual education was intro-duced, curriculum was adjusted to include culturalprograms, and more pertinent vocational trainingprograms were instituted. To compensate statesfor the cost of Native education, the Johnson O'-Malley Act was passed in 1934. Educational andtechnical vocational programs were still not of-fered, to a great degree, to Native adults; therewas, however, a growing appreciation for theadult's role in motivating Native children to attendschool.

John Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairsduring this period, was responsible for the closingof 16 boarding schools and the opening of 84 dayschools. Collier also started programs in adulteducation, training ofNative instructors and in ser-vice teacher training (Kennedy Report, 1969, p.13).

3

The humane policies toward Native com-munkies would end in the 1940s. Once again,policies of termination and assimilation would beenacted by the federal government as a 'final solu-tion ofthe Indian problem." In 1944 a House SenateSelect Committee on Indian Affairs reported that"the goal of Indian education should be to make theIndian child a better American, rather than equiphim simply in be a better Indian.170 As a result,the progressive agendas put forth by the Commit-tee of One Hundred, The Meriam AssociatesRJport, and Commissioner Collier were ignored.Reservation day schools were closed, forcing Na-tive children into boarding schools far from theiiparents and homes. In 1952 all Native schools inWisconsin, Washington, Michigan, and Idaho wereclosed, pushing Native children into unpreparedpublic school systems.

The goal of this period, according to the Ken-nedy Report, was to 'get rid of Indians and Indiantrust land by terminating federal recognition andrelocating Indians into cities offthe reservation.170The termination period was capped with the enact-ment of Public Law 280 which transferred federaljurisdiction of many Native communities to in-dividual states and the passage of House Concur-rent Resolution 108 which called for an end offederal services to Native communities. PublicLaw 280 was later modified by the Indian CivilRights Act of 1968 which required states to gainthe permission of Native Communities prior to thetransfer of jurisdiction. In 1988 the Housewithdrew Concurrent Resolution 108.

In 1969 a Congressional study entitled IndianEducation: A National Tragedy A NationalChallenge (US Senate, 196) was published.Commonly referred to as the Kennedy Report,the study echoed the findings of the Miriam Report,but grabbed the nation's attention with itsthoroughness and style of presentation. The studyrevealed that: Native dropout rates were twice thenational average; some school districts haddropout rates approaching 100 percent; achieve-ment levels of Native children were 2-to-3 yearsbelow those of white students; Native children fallprogressively further behind the longer they stayin school; only 1 percent of Native children inelementary school had Native teachers; and Nativechildren, more than any other minority group,believe themselves to be below average in intel-ligence (Kennedy Report, 1969, p. IX).

The statistics revealed the need to overhaulNative education programs and prompted theauthors of the report to publicly exclaim the failureof federal Native policies: "These cold (statisticsmark a stain on our national conscience, a stain

4

Indians Nations At Risk: Solutions for the 1990s

which has spread slowly for a hundred years.170The authors concluded that national policies foreducating Native people were a 'failure of majorproportions.170

The result nf that failure was the large numbersof under educated Native adults. The Kennedyreport, more than any other report up to that time,focused attention on the problems of Nativeliteracy, adult education and vocational training.It revealed that possibly 75,000 Native adults werenot fitnctionally literate; less than one-fifth of theNative adult population had completed high schoolor its equivalent. Functional illiteracy and a lackof high school graduates were cited as a majorcause of the severe poverty on Native reservationsand the failure of Native children in school. Thestudy determined that the BIA's adult educationand vocational training programs were barelyscratching the surface of these problems. SenatorEdward M. Kennedy, subcommittee chairman,punctuated the findings with comments thatrevealed his shock and anger at what the commit-tee had found: 'These cold statistics illuminate anational tragedy and a national disgrace. Theydemonstrate that the first American' has becomethe 'last American' in terms of opportunity foremployment, education, a decent income, and thechance for a full and rewarding life.170

The report put forth 60 recommendations andgoals that the authors felt, if enacted, would betterthe state of Native education. Four of those recom-mendations directly affect adult and vocationaleducation:

1. That adult illiteracy in Native Com-munities be eliminated;

2. That adult high school equivalencyprograms for all Native adults be estab-lished;

3. That an exemplary program of al ulteducation be developed which will provide:a. Basic literacy opportunities to all non-

literate Native adults. The goal shouldbe to wipe out illiteracy.

b. Opportunities to all Native adults toqualify for a high school equivalencycertificate. The goal should be to pro-vide all interested Indian adults withhigh school equivalency in the shortestperiod of time feasible.

c. A major research and developmentprogram to develop more innovativeand effective techniques for achievingthe literacy and high school equivalen-cy goals.

d. That adult education programs beplaced under Native control.

4

4. That there he a thorough review of thevocational educational and manpowerprograms in the BIA. The review would beconducted by an independent group of ex-perts; the study should include Nativeparents and tribal leaders, and exploreeconomic opportunities available on reser-vations for those Natives who may wish tostay on the reservation; vocational train-ing programs should be closely articulatedwith economic development programs onreservations.

The report challenged the federal governmentto renew its commitment to Native communities.It called for legislative changes; administrativechanges; policy changes; structural changes allof which are geared to making Indian educationprograms into models of excellence.170 And, per-haps most importantly, the report called for areconsideration of the Miriam Report recommen-dations of Native control over Native educationprograms.

The Kennedy Report proved to be an effectualdocument. One year later, President Richard M.Nixon's 1970 message to Congress stated: "...it islong past time that Indian policies of the feckralgovernment began to recognize and build upon thecapacities and insights of the Indian people...wemust begin to act on the basis of what the Indiansthemselves have long been telling us."

Nixon recommended that Native communitiesassume control and operation of federally fundvdNative education programs. He pushed for thedevelopment of the National Advisory Council onIndian Opportunity, composed of Nativeeducators. The Council's mandate was to providetechnical assistance to communities seeking to es-tablish local control of educational programs andtribal schools, to conduct a nationwide assessmentof the educational status of all Native children, andto evaluate and report to Congress on the progressof local control and the educational progress ofNative children.

The events of the time also influenced thedevelopment and passage of the Indian EducationAct of 1972. The Act, first referred to as Title IV,now Title V, obligates the majority of its funds toschool districts with significant Native populationsto develop culturally based education programs. Itrequires the participation of Native parents in thedesign, development, and evaluation of all Nativeeducation programs funded by the Act, and itptomoted the hiring ofNative teachers, counselors,tutors and other para-professionals within theschool district. Subpart 2 and 3 of the Act providesfunds to Native communities, organizations, and

5


institutions for the development of Native con-ceived and controlled primary, secondary andadult education programs. These funds, however,are competitive and have never reached the levelneeded to meet the educational needs of Nativecommunities. The Act also provides discretionaryfunds to public colleges and universities to trainNative teachers.

An important, and often controversial, result oflEA was its broad definition of American Indianand Alaska Natives, The Act defined "Indian170as members and their descendants in the first orsecond degree of federally recognized and ter-minated tribes, bands, and groups. The definitionwas meant to include all Natives. Some federallyrecognized Native communities protested the all-encompassing definition and challenged theauthenticity of many of the 'Natives170 served bythe Act. The controversy exists today, despitefederal efforts to establish Native identity throughthe completion of federal forms that have to besigned by Native governments. The Act also estab-lished the Office of Indian Education (OIE) withinthe Department of Health, Education and Welfare(now the U.S. Department of Education), and theNational Advisory Council on Indian Education

The Indian Education Act was followed by thepassage of the "Indian Vocational Program" con-tained within the reauthorization language ofwhat became the Carl Perkins Vocational Educa-tion Act (Public Law 98-524). Congressmen AlbertQuie (R., Minnesota) and Michael Blouin (D., Iowa)sponsored the then one-percent, set-aside pro-gram. The set aside was to be metaled by the BIA

this has never occurred as the BIA has con-tinually and successfully obtained Congressionalwaivers relieving it of its matching mandate. TheAct was reauthorized in 1990 (Public Law 101-392), and the set-aside for Native programs in-creased to 1.25 percent of the total appropriation,with 0.25 percent going to Hawaiian Natives.

The renamed Indian and Hawaiian NativesVocational Education Program was designed toprovide Native communities, organizations, andcolleges with funds to develop a wide range ofvocational training programs that lead to theemployment of tribal members. From 1977 to 1989some 638 Native communities and organizationsapplied through the competitive applicationprocess for funding. Of these applications, 409were funded, for a total funding level of $79.7million. According to the U.S. Department ofEducation, approximately 5,000 Natives a yearwere served by these programs.

Three important studies have examined theimpact of such federal efforts as the Indian Educa-

5

PV, k 0* V014<1.40Ur,S. 4.4* . . .. 1

tion Act, the Indian and Hawaiian Natives Voce-tionr.1 Education Program, and the BIA to provideNative communities with better educational ser-vices.

In 1977 a ground breaking research study en-titled Literacy and Education Among AdultIndians in Oklahoma (Hall and Hackbert, 1977)reported on the education attainment levels ofNatives within the state of Oklahoma. Study find-ings included:

Of the 63,490 Native adults residing in thestate, more than 51 percent had not com-pleted high school, and 22 percent had notcompleted 8th grade.56 percent of the Native adult populationcould be deemed functionally illiterate inone or more of the basic knowledge or skillareas.42.8 percent lacked the skills necessary tofully participate within modern Americansoiety.63 percent were not able to perform basicmathematical functions, while another 17percent had only marginal math skills.62 percent did not fully possess the skillsrequired to adequately respond to healthproblems.

The study contrasted the abilities of Natives :.1better their existence against the complexity ofcontemporary America and found a very largenumber of Oklahoma Native adults to be at risk offailure. It recommended that educationalprograms be developed to upgrade Native survivalskills needed to cope with the day-to-day situationsinvolving commerce and health.

In 1981 the Status of Educational Attain-ment and Performance of Adult AmericanIndians and Alaska Natives (Brod and Mc-Quiston, 1977) was released. The nationwide studywas funded by the United States Department ofEducation Office of Indian Education to conduct abasic survey to ascertain the extent of the educa-tional problems among Native adults. The com-prehensive study took four years to complete; itgathered detailed information in such areas as theindividual's life history, social condition and con-ducted academic performance level testingthrough a sixteen page questionnaire completed bysome four thousand randomly selected adult Na-tives. The study also surveyed community, stateand federally supported adult education programsto determine their ability to aid adult Natives andto evaluate Native participation and success levelswithin those programs. Major findings included:

6


The median education of NativeAmericans is more than two years lowerthan that found among Caucasians.Native performance on the Adult Perfor-mance Level examination was flu. belowthose of non-Natives on the traditionalreading, writing, computation andeconomic scales; Native adults averaged52 percent compared to a national norm inthe 80s.43 percent of the Native adult populationhad not obtained a high school diploma orits equivalent.Unemployment, underemployment and

other symbols of a disadvantaged popula-tion are the rule rather than the exceptionamong Native adults.

The study reported that one-third of all Nativeadults were dissatisfied with the education theyreceived; more than three-quarters would haveliked more education; two-thirds felt they hadreceived an inappropriate education, preventingthem from obtaining the type of occupations theydesired and achieving the lives they wanted tolead.

The survey of state sponsored adult educationprograms revealed the following:

Few SEAs were able to provide data con-cerning participation and success rates ofadult Natives within their programs.44 percent reported difficulties resultingfrom inadequate recruitment linkages toNative communities.36 percent lacked an identifiable com-munity from which to recruit Native par-ticipants.33 percent lacked trained staff to deal withthe special problems of adult Natives.28 percent reported transportationproblems.

23 percent cited child care problems.21 percent stated problems with culturalincompatibility.

Survey results from Indian Education Actfunded tribal programs determined that sixty per-cent of their participants were unemployed; fortypercent lived in substandard housing; twenty-fivepercent had educational achievement levels belowthe eighth grade; thirty-two percent were in needof transportation. Most participants ranged from16-to-34 years old.

Study recommendations called for additionalresearch on Native adult education, an evaluation

of the adult Native education delicmry system,provisions for instruction in traditional languages,provisions for the development of culturally re-lated educatin modules, and increased funding forNative education programs. The report concludedthat although Native based adult educationprograms displayed higher completion rates thannon-Native programs, neither program adequatelyserved the needs of the Native community. "Suc-cess is illusory...[adult education programs] do notfulfill the needs of the Indian student nor do theyimprove their literacy except in eases of the ex-tremely motivated student who will succeeddespite the system." The most recent study con-cerning Native adult vocational programs was con-ducted by an ad hoc committee of concerned Nativeeducators. Entitled the National Indian Voca-tional Education Needs Analysis, the reportwas released in August 1989 and presented toCongress during reauthorization hearings for theCarl D. Perkins Act.

The study surveyed 280 Native communities toidentify rates of unemployment, high school dropouts, average educational attainment levels, andother pertinent data. The authors warn ofmethodological problems resulting from non-standardization of data collection, a small returnof the survey instrument (25 percent), and an ex-tremely limited operating budget. Nevertheless,the report contends that the study provides impor-tant indications "of the directions that tribes leanwith regard to vocational education" (NIVENA, 89,p. 7).

Mikjor study findings include:

Unemployment ranges from a low of sevenpercent to a high of 90 percent.Drop out rates are exceedingly high: on-reservation rates average 38 percent whileoff-reservation rates for some tribesaverage 28 percent.

Of those surveyed the average grade levelcompleted was grade 10.

The authors included a four-point summary:1. A great need exists to establish Indian

vocational education programs linked toeconomic development at the local Triballevel.

2. A need exists to address vocational educa-tion opportunities for a growing populationof Indian youth which attend BIA fundedsecondary schools. Currently, theseschools are not eligible to receive stateappropriated or state allocated CarlPerkins Vocational Education Act funds.Resources from the Indian Vocational

6 7

sw4rApi waiR175.#141P.ARItill-V4MrAr.R.MOAVirtrWINGIPM)91,-,1".111 VW" .11,..*./111C..."..r. ap -.


Education Pregram are not sufficient toprovide adequate vocational education forthis population.

3. A need exists to consistently addresspostsecondary vocational education oppor-tunities for tribally controlled institutions.In particular, funds need to be made avail-able for tribal colleges and to maintainoperation of postsecondary vocationaleducation institutions such as CrownpointInstitute of Technology and the UnitedTribes Technical College. These schoolsare not eligible for state appropriatedfunds, and the receipt of federal funds fromeach state largely depends on the view ofeach state toward tribal entities.

4. A significant need exists to establish aNational Indian Center for Research inVocational-Technical Training. The exist-ing research centers are oriented towardstates and public schools.

Some of the above concerns were addressedwith the reauthorization of the Carl Perkins Act.Tribal colleges and BIA schools now have greateraccess to Indian Vocational Program funds. Nativecommunities are still afforded the opportunity toapply for discretionary funds. The requested three-percent, set-aside was not incorporated into thenew legislation.

Summation of the historicalrelationship between Nativecommunities and the federal

government.The studies and reports presented in this sec .

tion provide overwhelming evidence that thefederal government has not fulfilled its promise toprovide for the education of American Indians andAlaska Natives. Each of the reports have identifiedthe problems facing Native adults and have maderecommendations for change. Yet it is clear thatlittle has changed. The relationship between thefederal government and Native communitiesremains distressingly constant. The conditionswithin Native communities remain sadly predict-able. A 1990 report entitled The Demographicsof American Indians: One percent of thePeople; Fifty percent of the Diversity(Hodgkinson 1990) assembled statistics from avariety of sources and provides a present day pic-ture of Native communities: American Indianyouth are overwhelmingly attending publicschools; the national dropout rate (35 percent) isthe highest of any minority group. In 1988 29percent of Native eighth graders had repeated at

.eIllistMfa,k-0

least one grade 40 percent had scored in thelowest quartile on tests in history, math, readingand science 19 percent expected to drop out ofhigh school or go no further 11 percent hadmissed a week or more of school during a four weekperiod (National Education Longitudinal Study,1988). A 1988 BIA report (Report on BIA Educa-tion: Final Draft, 1988, p. 91) presented similarfindings and stated that Native students attendingBIA operated and contracted schools scored wellbelow national norms on nationally standardizedtests. Such conditions mirror past faili Ires becausethe federal government still tries to manage Nativeeducation programs from afar or from within mas-sive bureaucratic institutions. Reform will notoccur until the government understands that thegreatest need involving Native education is achange in point of view. Lewis Meriam's recom-mmdation has been reformulated and rewordedbut always repeated by the authors of every majorreport since the 1920s. It was the spirit behind theIndian Reorganization Act and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistant Act. Bold-ly interpreted, it calls for a redirection of federalfunds from federal agendes to Native govern-ments. It conveys the historic view that Nativegovernments be treated as sovereign nationsfully able to determine the educational direction oftheir members.

Current Strategies: ADescription and Assessment of

State and Federal AdultEducation and Vocational

Training Programs.Native leaders, educators and community

members understand that the success of adulteducation and training is tied to the economicconditions of their communities. A INAR TaskForce member expressed this relationship whileattending the 1990 National Indian Educn.tion As-sociation Conference in San Diego, California: Theproblem with vocational education is similar to thechicken and the egg. There is no reason to becomeskilled and educated if there are no jobs to lookforward to. On the other hand, (Native com-munities] are not going to attract industry unkssthere is a skilled labor force. (Ely, San Diego, 1990,p. 6).

The INAR Task Force collected a wide range ofconcerns expressed by Native educators, which fallinto three basic categories: Economic Develop-ment, Labor Force Realities, and Funding. A sum-mary of those expressions follows:


The presence of a factory off the reservationproviding $3.50-per-hour jobs, in my Judge-ment a sweatshop, should not be viewed asan option. We are able to bring onto four)reservation such jobs as sewing and surging(stitching process)... a very simple, very lowtechnology, very boring (process). Thesekinds of Jobs do not inspire or motivateyoung men...to finish high school. (Ho, SanDiego, California. 90, p. 6)A vocational program is very, very expensiveto run. We don't have the equipment...wedon't have the money to buy the equipment.We have approached some of the local in-dustry...on or near our reservation...butthey are donated out. (San Diego, California,90, p. 9)Several years ago, the MIN on nur reserva-tion decided they were going to traineveryone to be welders...everybody showedup...everyone became certified welders...andthey're all unemployed today because therewas no connection between industry andtraining. (San Diego, California, p. 31)'lb be eligible to apply for state (Carl PerkinsVocational Program or Adult Basic Educa-tion Program) funds ymi must either be alocal education agency (LEA) or an Institu-tion of higher education. A tribe doesn't fallinto either category. I've written toWashington, D.C., and to the state, and theyeach blame the other for that regulation.(San Diego, California, 90, p. 12)

To accurately assess the impact cf state andfederal adult education and training programs,Native community leaders and federal and statelegislators have to resolve the debate that centersaround the following questions:

Who is a Native?

How many Natives are there?How many Native adults are there?How many have completed a high schooleducation?How many are unemployed or under-employed?

The question as to who is a Native is verycontroversial.

Of the 500 or so Native communities and or-ganizations in the United States, about 400 have arelationship with the federal government. Nativegovernments determine their membershipthrough blood quantum measurements, descen-dant rolos, marriage, and other criteria establish dby their constitutions. While the Bureau of IndianAffairs (BIA), U.S. Department of Education (ED),and the Indian Health Service (IHS) acknowledgethis historic right, they add variations to the defini-

tion and often report differing figures than theCensus Bureau. Thus, the data is convoluted andhampers the validity of any report concerning thecondition of Native adults. To avert confusion andcentralize debate, the following description of Na-tive adults was drawn from a U.S. Department efInterior report entitled Report of the Task Forceon Indian Economic Development (July 1986).

The data reveals that while Natives acconnt forless than one percent of the nation's total popula-tion, on-reservation Natives are highly repre-sented in a number of disheartening categories:Forty-four percent have not attained a high schoridegree; 41.2 percent are below the poverty level,and 16.9 percent of the civilian labor force is un-employment.

Even more disturbing information can be foundin other studies that report a range of data. Suchstudies (McQuiston and Brod, 1977) (Ad Hoc Com-mittee, 1989) uncover high school drop out ratesfrom 10 to 80 percent; unemployment rates rang-ing from 7 to 90 percent, and poverty rates exceed-ing 50 percent. What is missing on the nationailevel are current data concerning the number ofNative adults in need of adult basic education andvocational training programs. Without such per-tinent data federal budgets will continue to beconstructed on invalid estimates of the Nativeadult population in need.

Federal Legislation andBureau of Indian Affairs

Education ProgramsThe United States Congress has enacted an

array of legislation aimed at increasing the educa-tional and vocational opportunities afforded toadult American Indian and Alaska Natives. TheAdult Education Act and the Carl D. Perkins Voca-tional Education Act provide funds to the states tooperate adult education and vocational trainingprograms. Natives participate in these federallyfunded, state administered programs by attendingstate accredited high schools, adult educationprograms, junior colleges and four-year univer-sities. The Indian Education Act, the Indian andHawaiian Natives Vocational Education Program,the Joint Training Partnership Act, and the Fami-ly Support Act and such Bureau of Indian Affairsprograms as Adult Education and Adult Vocation-al Training provide direct funding to Native com-munities and organizations to develop their owneducational programs. A summary of these Actsand BIA programs follows:

9,P14'7111'.44,MMAI.V.MIVTOPOPVISF.1.610.30,1M.0,110/4.11.10.,%, ..110 N.I.M[1.,011.W.U'IPIVA..111/1.1 re r - - re .- .


Adult Education ActThe Adult Education Act (AEA) was

reauthorized in 1988 (Public Law 100-297). Thefederally funded, state administered program isoverseen by the U.S. Department of Education'sDivision ofAdult Education and Literacy. The AEAallows for the development of programs to undereducated adults in three general areas: AdultBasic Education (ABE), English as a Second Lan-guage (ESL), and Adult Secondary Education(ASE).

The AEA provides federal, formula basedgrants to state educational agencies (SEA), whichthen, according to a state plan, distribute the fundsto local educational agencies (LEAs) and com-munity based educational institutes. Suchprograms received $134 million in fiscal year 1988,with state and local support for these programstotalling four times that amount.

Table 1 compares the number of American In-dians and Alaska Natives with the total enrollmentwithin state-administered adult educationprograms.

Table 1Comparison of Numbers of American Indian andAlaska Natives Enrolled in State-AdministeredAdult Education Programs by Year

YearU.S. TotalPopulation

NativePopulation

PercentNative

1986 2,879,126 26,102 0.91%1986 3,069,677 26,102 0.82%1987 2,949,720 29,457 1.00%1988 3,039,430 26,906 0.89%

Source: Department of Education

The National Advisory Council on IndianEducation, in its 16th Annual Report (NACIE An-nual Report, 1990, p. 12) to the U.S. Congress,cautions that Native national participation totalsare inaccurate. The incorrect count occurs becausesome states combine in their year-end reports stu-dents enrolled in state-administered adult educa-tion programs with students graduating fromNative community programs. Federal appropria-tions are then based on these inflated reports,creating a financial gain for services not provided.Another problem arises with the definition ofAmerican Indian and Alaska Natives. Statesprimarily use self-identification as a means ofsegregating their counts, which can disguise theamount of services available to Native com-munities.

Native communities are often left out of thedistribution of the AEA finding process since Na-tive educational programs are not considered localeducational agencies. Lack of LEA status also

9

prevents most Native communities from sharing inadult education funds raised by state taxes anddistributed to state education programs. For ex-ample, in the state of Michigan, AEA funds areavailable to LEAs, non-profit educational institu-tions, and community based agencies while stategenerated funds are restricted to LEA& Nativ2programs seeking AEA assistance as communitybased institutions can receive around $200 perstudent. But LEAs can receive up to $3,000 perstudent from state funds to operate theirprograms. Thus, the problem facing Michigan Na-tive communities is not one of access to AEA fundsbut of equity.

Indian Education ActIn 1988 when President Ronald Reagan signed

into law the Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Staf-ford Elementary and Secondary School Improve-ment Amendments of 1988, he became the thirdPresident to reauthorize the Indian Education Act(IEA). The 1EA is contained within the language ofPublic Law 100-297 and provides for the main-tenance of the Office of Indian Education, formulagrants to school districts containing large Nativepopulations (Subpart 1), discretionary progiams toNative communities and organizations seeking tofund educational programs for Native children(Subpart 2) and adults (Subpart 3), a fellowshipprogram, and the continuance of the National Ad-visory Council on Indian Education.

The Indian adult education program is ad-ministered by the United States Department ofEducation's Office of Indian Education (01E). Sub-part 3 of the Act provides discretionary grants toAmerican Indian and Alaska Native communitiesand villages, organizations, and institutions tooperate adult education programs. Two of the ac-tivities funded under the program are: (1) educa-tional services and instruction; and, (2) planning,pilot and demonstration projects. The goals of suchprograms range from providing basic literacy in-struction, adult basic education services, and highschool completion to planning, testing, anddemonstrating the effectiveness of innovativeprograms designed to improve Native adult in-structional methods and job opportunities. Manyprograms additionally offer instruction in suchareas as consumer education, employment aware-ness skills, job referral, aptitude testing, andeducational counseling.

In fiscal year 1989 OIE awarded 32 grants toprojects serving approximately 7,200 Nativeadults. The awards went to 12 Native com-munities, 14 Native organizations, and 6 Nativecontrolled community colleges. Eleven of the

1 0


Figure 1. Comparison of On and Off Reservation American Indian and Alaska Native EconomicConditions with Total U.S. Population

awards went to urban areas, and 21 went to ruralor reservation settings. Grants ranged from a lowof $28,468 to a high of $397,414.

Table 2 provides a five-year breakdown of pro-gram appropriation levels, distribution of grants,and participant levels.

open entry and open exit, instruction was self-paced and individualized, and curriculum wasmostly commercially prepared instructionalmaterials. The report provided ten questions andreport findings to a panel of experts (Nativeeducators) for consensus review. An abridged

TABLE 2Office of Indian Education Adult Education Program Funding by Fiscal Year

FiscalYear Appropriations

Number ofPrograms

Number ofParticipants

Per PupilExpenditure

1985 $2,940,000 22 7,222 $4071986 2,797,000 25 10,6d2 2621987 3,000,000 29 9,600 3131988 3,000,000 25 5,600 5311989 4,000,000 32 7,200 556Source: DepaL tment of Education, Office of Indian Education

An independent evaluation of ten IEA adulteducation programs was conducted in 1984. Thestudy entitled An Evaluation of the IndianEducation Act, Title IV, Part C: Education forIndian Adults described and evaluated adulteducation programs at ten sites (Pelavin As-sociates Inc., 84). The report found that mostprograms offering educational services providedGED and ABE level instruction. Enrollment was

selection of thoE..1 questions and panel commentsfollows:

1. Are Native adult education projects doingwhat the law and regulations intend? "Inall cases, the activities funded were thoseauthcrized by law" (p. 109).

2. To %hat extent are the services deliveredactually those that seem to be necessary?"In most casev, the services delivered are

10 1 1

Adult and Vocational EduLation

those that seem to be most necessary" (p.110).

3. Is the grant process mechanism andprocess As currently established an effec-tive and . 71cient metleod for serving thetarget population? 'The grants process ascurrently structured...may be responsiblefor two problems discovered in the study.First, only scarce resources are availableto meet the needs of the target popula-tion...many adult Indians throughout theUnited States...have no access to any adulteducation program. Secondly, a number ofgrantees compete successfully year afteryear for (Subpart 3] funds, and it seemsthat few new applicants are successful incompeting for grants" (p. 113).

4. Is duplication of services an issue in thedistribution of [Subpart 3] funds? 'Thepanel of experts defined 'duplication ofservices' as instances where the samepopulation is served by two or more localprojects, each offering culturally ap-propriate educational services of comparable scope and quality. The panelconcluded that this evaluation found onlyone instance of such duplication" (p. 11.4).

5. Is the distinction between educational ser-vices, and planning, pilot, and demonstra-tion projects important? "Except forProject SEARCH and curriculum develop-ment efforts, the sampled sites showed lit-tle difference" (p. 116).[Skipping 6, &

8. Has the Office of Indian Education (01E)administered [Subpart 3] well? "[Subpart3] projects have received little attention,little project monitoring, and little techni-cal assistance from OIE" (p. 118).

Literacy was largely unaddressed by the studyas it found few programs that delivered such in-struction. The study suggested that for pragmaticreasons most programs provided GED prepara-tion, rather than literacy instruction. Literacy in-struction is the most costly instruction to provide.It requires literacy trained teachers, ofwhich thereare few; the use of specialized instructionalmaterials, of which little exists; and the recruit-ment of illiterate adults, a long and arduousprocess that often reaps few candidates. On theother hand, ABE and GED teachers are compara-tively numerous and easily hired. Adult basiceducation and GED instructional materials areabundant, and large numbers of Native adults wholeft school after or during the 8th grade are readily

attracted to GED completion programs. Literacyprograms are needed within Native communities.Subpart 3 of the IEA, however, appears unable toproperly fund or motivate Native communities toestablish such programs.

Funding levels and the competitive applicationprocess of the IEA adult education program arepoints of contention with Native educators: We'vebeen (pleading) year after year (for) more moneyand we know that money's not growing. It's shrink-ing. Funding needs to be spread as far and wide aspossible...because we have problems with Indiansfighting each other. (Bonito, San Diego, California,p. 31).

The adult education portion of the IEA hasnever been fully funded. Such requests from pastand present OIE directors often lack the support ofthe United States Department of Education (ED)officials and have been turned down by the Officeof Management and Budget. Thus, the programhas never been able to satisfy the expressed needfor adult education within Native communities.For the past five years, OIE has funded an averageof 26.6 (new and continuing) applications per year.The yearly number of proposals requesting fund-ing, received by that office, often climbs to threetimes the amount funded.

Proposals are evaluated and scored by readingpanels composed of Native educators and El) per-sonnel. As directed by law, priority points are givento Native communities and organizations. Scoresfrom individual readers are compiled, statisticallystandardized, and rank-ordered. The order is fol-lowed in making grant awards. Grants areawardc.3 on a one, two and three year basis. Theprocess invites challenges from the Native com-munity. Hard pressed to enlist Natives into thereview process, the department has often had toreduce panels from three to two readers and toallow readers with marginal adult education ex-perience into the system.

An example of reader conflict occurred in 1988when the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of ChippewaIndians' proposal fell from being one of the toprated proposals of previous years to not fundable.An exclnination of the scoring process revealedthat reader disagreement was never standardizedprior to ranking the tribe's proposal. Reader dis-agreement in such key areas as program need, planof operation, and quality of key personnel variedby as much as thirty points. One reader evendeducted points for the omission of a program timeline, which was not only provided in the propc-but also noted in the proposal's table of context.After long discussions between the tribe and the

n 12


department, the proposal was funded at 50 percentof the budgeted request.

In its 15th Annual Report to Congress, theNational Advisory Council on Indian Educationimplied that the overall operational quality of OIEhas suffered from a lack of leadership. For the past10 years, there have been more acting directorsthan permanent directors, and only five of the ninedirectors have been Native or of Native descent.According to the American Indian Adult EducationAssociation (AIAEA), this lack of permanentleadership has led to a decline in the staffing levelsof the office and the number of Native peopleemployed or seeking employment within OIE. TheA7AEA is concerned that throughout the history ofOW the office has had few staff members able todeal with or understand the problems associatedwith adult education. The Association furtherpoints to tha lack of data collected concerning dropout and graduation rates versus high school andGED completion as one of the reasons adult educa-tion remains a low funding priority among Nativeeducation programs.

Problems associated with leadership, staff

Table 3

programs. In order to accomplish those goals, Tip-peconnic will need the support of the Native com-munities as he takes these requests intodiscussions with his superiors at the Office ofSecondary Education and the Office of Manage-ment and Budget.

Adult Education Program:Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Adult EducationProgram is authorized by the Synder Attt of 1921(Public Law 67-85). Program instruction is basedon community need assessments and includes suchareas as adult basic education, high school comple-tion, consumer education, employment awarenessskills, job referral, and educational counseling. Infiscal year 1989, 75 Native communities chose toadminister adult education programs under PublicLaw 93-638 (Self-Determination) contracts; 13programs were administered by the BIA.

Table 3 provides a five-year breakdown of ap-propriation levels, distribution of grants, and par-ticipant levels.

Bureau of Indian Affairs Adult Education Program Funding by Fiscal Year


Number ofPrograms

Approx. Number Per Pupilof Participants Expenditure

1985 $3,474,000 88 13,520 $2571986 3,391,000 88 12,800 2651987 3,141,000 88 13,000 2621988 3,141,000 88 12,000 2511989 3.138,000 88 12,500 255Source: BIA Reports

shortages, and lack of data culminated in 1989,when the then acting director of OIE stood beforethe Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs andstated he saw no need to increase the funding levelto the discretionary adult education program. Suchtestimony often reflects the view of officials withinthe Office of Planning and Budget and Evaluationrather than the personal opinions of the director ofOIE.

The present director of OIE, John TippeconnicIII, does not share the feelings of his predecessor.In a 1990 meeting with Native educators, he statedhis office intends to seek an increased appropria-tion for adult education programs, to hire addition-al Native staff, and to collect data to determine theextent of the need for Native adult education

12

Native educators cite the low funding level ofthis program and its inclusion in the IndianPriority System (IPS) as reasons why it has not hadgreater impact on the educational problems of Na-tive communities. The priority system providesNative governments with some authority to decidethe services they would provide if the tribe's basefunding level were at 80, 90, 100 or 110 percent ofthe prior year's level. Programs under the prioritysystem are categorized under such headings asEducation, Natural Resources, Indian Services,Credit and Finance, Trust Responsibilities andAdministrative Services. Tribal contract programsinclude Adult Education, Higher Education, AdultVocational Training, Employment Assistance,Scholarships, Tribal Courts, Social Services, Law

3


Enforcement, Community Fire Protection, YouthWork Learn, and Water Quality. Priority selections are determined at tribal/agency offices thenpassed on to Area Offices and compiled at theBureau's Central Office in Washington D.C. Theresults are included in the President's budget toCongress. In theory the priority system providesCongress ard Central Office staff with the infor-mation needed to identify and budget funds forhigh priority programs. Many Native communitiescharge that the system does little more than pro-vide Central Office staff with a "hit" list to reduceprogram funding levels or eliminate programs. Anumber of Native educators and education or-ganizations would like to separate adult educationfrom the IPS in the hope that it may receive moreattention and funding an a stand-alone program.Some Native leaders disagree and want the pro-gram to remain in the IPS allowing tribes to con-tinue to administer the program under Public Law93-638 contracts. Both Native educators and com-munity leaders agree that the IPS forces absurddecisions. To establish or enlarge an adult educa-tion program, a tribe must vote to eliminate ordecrease such other essential services as socialservices, police enforcement, or land manage-ment.

The BIA adult education program appears to besuffering from a lack of atte _don and direction. Atpresent the program is being administered by aneducation specialist who must split duties with theBureau's higher education program. Prior to thespecialist's hiring, the BIA had been unable topermanently fill the position for a number of years.With no one in charge, program end-year reportsas far back as 1986 went mostly unread and un-analyzed stacked in boxes throughout the office.The BIA is well aware of the problem. A 1988report states "given the current numbers andskills, many OIEP staff are simply overwhelmedby the burden of their jobs...legally requiredreports to Congress on the status of Indian educa-tion have not been prepared at all in some years,and when prepared have lacked basic data, infor-mation and analysis." The report contends that atpresent OIEP is failing to exercise the instruction-al and management leudership role that is itsproper function (Report on BIA Education: FinalDraft, 1988, p. 181).

Carl D. Perkins VocationalEducation Act.

The U.S. Department of Education, Office ofAdult and Vocational Education administers voca-tional education programs under the authorizationof the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act

(Public Law 101-362). The stated purpose of theAct is to "make the United States more competitivein the world economy by developing more fully theacademic and occupational skills of all segments ofthe population."

The Basic Grant program of' the Act providesfunding to state educatioaal agencies, which thendistribute funds within the state according to astate plan. Most often, states distribute themajority of their funds to LEAs, with smalleramounts available to private non-profit orgmiza-tions and community based organizations. Thevarious programs and amounts funded under thevocational education program for fiscal year 1989follow.

Native communities and organizations areeligible for funding under this program if the statein which they reside has included their needs in thestate plan. Most states do not. If Native needs arenot part of the state plan, most states allow Nativecommunities to compete for small subgrants underthe title of public and private nonprofit organiza-tions. The major blockage to Native participationis the lack of LEA status.

Native students, however, do participate instate administered vocational education programswithin various public school systems. The degreeand success of that participation is uncertain. Ac-cording to the Nation l Advisory Council on IndianEducation, the 1982. 83 school year was the lasttime any type of formal count of the number andethnicity of participants was made. The countrevealed that 63,834 Native students were enrolledin state sponsored programs. Of that number,30,616 were males and 33,218 were females. Thetotal number of vocational students served duringthat year amounted to 9,810,000.

Indian and Hawaiian NativesVocational Education Program.

Authorization for the Indian and Hawaiian Na-tive Vocational Education Program (IHNVEP) iscontained within the language of the Carl D.Perkins Vocational Education Act. It is ad-ministered by the United States Department ofEducation, Office of Adult and Vocational Educa-tion, Special Programs Branch. The programbegan in 1977 with an appropriation of $5.2 millionand has increased to $11 million for fiscal year1991. The program offers discretionary grants toeligible Native communities, colleges, and or-ganization s to operate vocational trainingprograms in such areas as office administration,construction trades, forestry, engine repair,fishery management, boat building and othertrades linked to job placement and Native corn-

13 1 4

Indians Nations At Risk: Solutions kr the 1990s

munity economic development. Grants areawarded through a competitive process that invol-ves a panel of expert readers who score each ap-plication against set criteria. Applications are thenrank-ordered and funded until the year's ap-propriation is exhausted. The system is identicalto the discretionary grant selection processemployed by the One of Indian Education, and itincurs virtually the same criticism as noted in thats Lion. The Perkins Act was reauthorized in 1990,aduing significant changes to the IHNVE program.Changes include new programs for Native control-led vocational technical schools a $2.44 millionappropriation; new programs for economicdevelopment institutes tied to Native communitycontrolled colleges; the inclusion of BIA schools inthe set-aside; new formulas for the distribution offunds to public schools with Ligh Native enroll-ments; and the elimination of 65 percent place-ment requirement for graduates of Nativeprograms. A 14-year funding history follows inTable 4.

Successful Native community programs in-clude the Tribal Management Secretarial TrainingProgram at Bay Mills Community College inMilhigan; the Heavy Equipment Operator train-ing program at the Salt River Pima-Maricopa In-dian Community; the Industrial Training Programof the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; andthe Bank Teller training program at the GrandTraverse Band of Chippewa and Ottawa IndianCommunity. All of these training programs aretied to the economic development plans of theircommunities and report excellent placement rates.The goal of these projects is usually two-fold: toreduce the community unemployment rates, andto enhance tribal operations by providing a trainedwork force for Native governments, industries andbusinesses.

At the postsecondary level two fully accreditedNative community controlled vocational institutesexist: Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT)and United Tribes Technical College (UTTC).Crownpoint was founded in 1979 and is located in

Table 4Funding Trends for the Office of Vocational and Adult Education,U.S. Department of Education


ContinuationProjects

NewProjects

TotalProjects

ApplicationsReceived

1977 $ 5,281,476 0 20 20 781978 5,437,777 19 11 30 401979 5,929,888 29 3 32 311980 6,929,755 8 26 34 581981 6,186,230 26 0 261982 5,936,734 22 0 221983 6,645,484 0 30 30 871984 6,733,624 29 0 291985 9,895,639 25 20 45 741986 9,564,367 19 22 41 921987 1.0,414,35" 18 30 48 711988 10,462,777 28 12 40 711989 10,808,990 35 5 40 371990 11,009,952 16 22 38 70

Totals $111,237,045 274 201 475 709Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education

Since 197'/, 91 individual Native communitiesand organizations programs, located in 30 states,have been funded by the program. An average of5,000 Native students are annually served throughNative community programs, with an average jobplacement rate of 75 percent.

Crownpoint, New Mexico, and offers one-yeartraining certificates in nine vocational areas. In1988 the Institute reported a retention rate ofnearly 90 percent and a positive placement rate(student employment or further training) of 80percent. The Navajo language is employed in the

14 15


classroom as CIT primarily serves the needs of theNavajo Nation. If funds were available to expandCIT, it could serve the needs of an additional (ap-proximately) 60,000 Natives located in Arizona,New Mexico, Utah and Colorado.

United Tribes Technical College is located inBismarck, North Dakota, and from August to Mayof each year enrolls an average of275 Native adultsand some 180 children. The college provides educa-tion and vocational training to adults residing onthe 105 acre campus, and it operates a nursery,preschool, elementary and middle school for thedependent children. Adults can seek training inone of eleven vocational programs or upgrade basicacademic skills through UTIV's adult educationprogram. The college primarily serves the Nativeresidents of North Dakota, South Dakota, andMontana with lesser enrollments coming fromUtah, Nebraska, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Michigan,and Washingtcn. The average student is 22 yearsof age. The college has a waiting list that annuallyexceeds 200.

Native communities take issue with theIHNVEP in three areas: inadequate funding levels,the competitive funding process and the BIA for itscontinued failure to provide the mandated fundingmatch. Table 5 reveals that during the past 11

category of their survey, 41 had never applied, 6had been rejected, 10 had received funding, and 2had applications pending. Reasons for not submit-ting applications ranged from a lack of programawareness, to a lack of sufficient technical[proposal writing] assistance to compile a proposal.No tribe with 500 or less members had applied forfunding. The report noted that some of the reser-vations with the highest unemployment rates werethe least able to present a competitive application.

The BIA's failure to mat4h IHNVEP appropria-tions represents a funding loss of more than $100million to Native vocational programs. The lostfunds would have strengthened and widened theservices of the above noted institutions, andprobably would have allowed for the developmentof vocational programs within the most im-poverished Native communities. The current sys-tem continually rewards those most able to employor hire effective grant writers. Since 1977 theIHNVEP has funded just over 100 of the 400eligible Native communities and organizations.

Adult Vocational Training:Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The BIA's Office of Tribal Services administers

TABLE 5Vocational Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education, FY 1989

Program inding LevelBasic Grants 4;831,566,000Consumer and Homemaker Education 33,118,000National Progams 26,005,000Community-Based Programs 7,904,000Permanent Appropr4 ations (Smith-Hughes Act) 7,148,000Source: U.S. Departmeat of Education

years the program has funded 201 of the 709 newapplications it has received from Native com-munities and organizations. This is a funding rateof 28 percent, which means that 508 applicantswere turned down because of a lack of funds andapplication quality during the past 11 years.Federal program staff affirm that low fundinglevels have prevented the funding of a large num-ber of quality applications. Crown Point's applica-tion was not funded in 1990, and urrc has notbeen funded since 1984. The previously mentionedNational Indian Vocational Needs Analysis(NIVENA) reported that of the 61 tribes respond-ing to the IHNVEP discretionary grant application

the Adult Vocational and Training program. Theprogram has two basic components: Adult Voca-tion Training (AVT) and Employment Assistance.The AVT component is basically a financial assis-tance program that provides Native communitieswith funds to help adults attend state accreditedvocational training centers. The Employment As-sistance program provides funds to assist un-employed adults who possess an employable skillto obtain employment. Such assistance includesjob placement, relocation to a job site, work cloth-ing costs, and financial assistance until the firstfull pay check is received. Like the BIA's adulteducation program, this program is funded

15 t;


through the IPS and suffers the same fundingproblems.

In 1991 AVT appropriations amounted to$16,927 million, and the Employment Assistanceprogram totalled $2,274 million. Employment As-sistance appropriations have declined in recentyears as Native communities have concentrated ondeveloping employment on their reservationsrather than assisting tribal members to leave thecommunity to find employment. In 1990 155 Na-tive communities contracted with the Bureau forAVT programs, with the Bureau administering 31programs.

This is an important program. United StatesDepartment of Labor reports indicate that theAmerican economy is rapidly shifting from amanufacturing base to a high technology, serviceindustry. By the year 2000, the mAjority ofnewjobswill require at least some post secondary educa-tion. Occupations which demand a college trainedwork force are expected to be the fc.stest growing.Workers witt a these occupations will be amongthe highest paid and the least likely to becomeunemployed. On the other hand, occupations thatwill require an untrained work force will be amongthe lowest paying, and those workers are mostlikely to become unemployed. These trends indi-cate that more complex job skills will be required.Employers will expect candidates to have masteredsuch basic skills as reading and writing, and theywill be looking for those who possess specializedcomputation and problem solving skills. Suchprojections have important implications for Nativecommunities. They predict that the gulf betweenthe employable and unemployable will grow evenwider as the cost of education and trainingprograms rises along side the demand.

A Native educator expressed this view to INARTask Force in California: With changing technol-ogy and higher skills needed for employment, youneed at least a two-year degree to be hired in adecent salaried position...the short term trainingprograms are out. (San Diego, 1990, p. 7)

The AVT program is designed to provide fund-ing for such training. Yet the program appears tobe in decline. The Washington, D.C., office has nothad a permanent division chief for a number ofyears. Office staffing has been reduced to the pointwhere only one administrative officer has been leftin charge of the day-to-day operations with nosecretarial assistance. While field offices monitorcommunity programs, year-end reports sent to theCentral office have not been evaluated to assessnational impact for the past two years. The pre-gram has not identified model programs, nor has

16

it held conferences to allow community programsto share problems or effective practices.

Joint Training Partnersjzip ActThe Joint Training Partners* Act (Public

Law 97-300) was enacted in 1982. Containedwithin the language of the Act is the Employmentand Training Programs for Native Americans andMigrant and Seasonal Farm workers. The programis administered by the United States Departmentof Labor and Employment's division of Indian andNative American Programs. The preamble of theAct states that because serious unemployment andeconomic disadvantages exist among members ofthe Indian, Alaska Native, and Hawaiian Nativecommunities, there is a compelling need for theestablishment of comprehensive training andemployment programs for members of those com-munities. The Act provides formula based funds toNative communities and organizations to developsuch adult employment and training programs asOn-the-Job Training (OJT), Work Experience(WE), Community Service Employment (CSE),and Classroom Training (CT).

The OJT component provides participant train-ing in the public or private sector. It pays up to 50percent of the participant's salary for a period of 44weeks. Once the training period is over, it is ex-pected that either the employer will hire the par-ticipant full-time, or that the participant will leavewith enough experience to obtain full-time, un-sub-sidized work in a similar field. The WE program isdesigned to enhance the employability of in-dividuals through the development of reliable workhabits and basic skills. The CSE componentauthorizes subsidized work, normally provided bythe government, in occupations which are expectedto expand within the public or private sector. TheCT program can be designed to fit the labor marketneeds of the community in which the JTPA pro-gram resides. Such classroom programs may trainsecretaries to fill a need within tribal administra-tive offices or provide funds to allow participantsto attend welding classes to fill an industrial need.

In fiscal year 1989 the Native JTPA programprovided 182 grants to Native communities andorganizations. Of that number, 133 were locatedwithin Native communities, and 49 were located inrural and urban areas. A total of 30,128 Nativeadults and youth received training under the pro-gram, with an average hourly wage of $5.50 perhour for the non-classroom components. Annualappropriations for the program average $60 mil-lion.

Participant performance quotas and incomelevel requirements often dictate that Native com-

17


munities enroll only those adults most able toobtain full-time employment. The practice is calledcreaming and often limits the program's ability towork with those most in need. The creaming com-pkint is not limited to the Native program but is acomplaint heard throughout the whole of the JTPAprogram.

Family Support ActThe Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Pro-

gram (JOBS) was authorized in 1988 with thepassage of the Family Support Act (Public Law100-485). The Act provides funding to states toestablish programs which create job opportunitiesand basic skills training for recipients of Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children (AFDC). Theprogram is designed to assist such recipients tobecome self-sufficient. The program specificallytargets single, never-marrigd mothers who did notgraduate from high school and who had their firstchild at a young age. The program provides fundsfor the care of dependent children while the parentor parents are enrolled in educational completionprograms or vocational training programs.

Subpart J of the Act provides direct federalfunding, through a formula based system, toAmerican Indian and Alaska Native communities.Native program funding levels are based on thenumber of adult Native AFDC recipients who livewithin the service area of the Native community.The program targets this population. Client ser-vices are delivered in three stages. The first stageinvolves an assessment of the clienes academic andjob readiness skills and the preparation of an in-dividual employment plan. Stage two servicesdepend on the findings of the client assessment andthe job readiness plan. For instance, Native adultshampered by reading* problems are referred toliteracy programs. Adults who have not completedhigh school are referred to a high school or GEDcompletion program, and adults in need of anemployable skill are referred to a technical train-ing or on-the-job training program. Stage threeinvolves securing self-sustaining employment. Inaddition, program counselors connect participantswith a host of social service programs that work toensure adequate housing, health care, and nutri-tion. Such services can include Native low-incomehousing programs, Indian Health Care Services,and federal food distribution programs. The pro-gram can also provide participants with travelexpenses, clothing assistance, and primary daycare costs.

For fiscal year 1991, the JOBS program hasprovided grants to 76 Native communities locatedin 23 states. The current funding level stands at

$60 million. Native communities receive fundsdirectly from the federal government and an evenmatch from the state in which they reside.

The program is so new that evaluation criteriaare still being devised. As a result, impact assess-ments have not been conducted. However, the tar-get population unemployed, never marriedmothers is prevalent within Native com-munities and should benefit from such a program.

Concluding ThoughtsThe more I learn about the problems facing

under educated and unemployed Native adults,the more I believe that we must make repairs onall fronts. On the federal level the two most impor-tant agencies serving Native communities, ED andthe BIA, appear caught between serving the needsof Native communities and giving way to demandsby the federal government to control or reduceexpenditures. The situation is further exasperatedas both agencies have either been unable or unwill-ing to resolve issues of sovereignty and self-deter-mination with the Native governments they serve.The result is that both agencies now appear lockedin a dysfunctional bureaucratic malaise. The situa-tion has caught the attention of Senator DeConciniwhose Special Committee on Investigations wasdismayed by findings of mismanagement in theBIA and IHS. The Senator will introduce legisla-tion in the 102nd Congress to redirect federal ap-propriations from federal agencies directly toNative communities. The legislation would estab-lish an Office of Federal-Tribal Relations in theExecutive Branch. Meanwhile, the BIA has takensteps to put its own house in order. In 1990 theBureau attempted to implement a significant in-stitutional reorganization. The effort, however,was halteu after a significant number of Nativecommunities complained to Congress that theywere not consulted on the proposed reorganization.Since that time a task force of Native governmentleaders and Bureau personnel has been estab-lished to guide the restructuring of the BIA. TheSenate Select Committee on Indian Affairs ispreparing legislation to establish a permanent Na-tive American Advisory Committee to guide thefuture actions of the BIA.

Productive change, however, will not occuruntil both (MEP and OIE can garner the supportof the Congress, the Executive Branch and theNative community. Not since President Nixon andthe publication of the Kennedy Report has any realattention been given to Native problems. Neitheragency currently has the ear of the Congress or thePresident. There is no Casper Weinberger (thevocal Secretary of Defense under President

17 .1 S


Reagan) heading ED or the BIA to push the Nativeagenda. Native communities have to fill this powergap and begin to better promote their needs on thefederal level. Native leaders must refocus theirtarget and rather than taking sole aim at OIE andOIEP for failing to gain additional funding, theymust push Congress to challenge or overridebudgetary restraints coming from OMB. Changewill result when Native leaders convince Congressand the President to pay closer attention to theeducational needs of American Indian and AlaskaNatives.

On the state level, Native communities must beallowed to take an active role in the developmentof state education plans, to be included in thedisbursement of educational funds, to be grantedLEA status, and to be appreciated as a valuedresource rather than a competitive government.Native communities could hasten this process byestablishing state wide education committees.Such committees could determine the educationalneeds of their communities and present thoseneeds to state departments of education or otherstate agencies that could provide assistance toNative education programs. Native communitiesand organizations should take an active role inpresenting their concerns to state legislators. Suchlegislators that are identified as friendly to Nativeconcerns should be supported during elections withfund raising events and voting drives.

On the community level, Native governmentsmust take an active role in the education of theirmembers. Tribal councils should closely monitorthe effectiveness of their educational institutionsand the public school system in which theirchildren are enrolled. They should enact educationcodes that stress academic achievement and theinfusion of tribal history and culture into the cur-ricula oflocal school systems. They should monitorschools to determine achievement rates, studentpolicies and curricula content. Native communitiesmust continue to develop drug and alcoholprograms, family counseling services, educationscholarships, and provide other necessary servicesto ensure the health and welfare of their members.Native parents must take an active role in theeducation of their sons and daughters. They mustinspire their children to succeed at school andmotivate them to move on to a professional life.Parents should be encouraged to sit in on schoolboard meetings, to attend parent-teacher conferen-ces, to review school policies and to take otheractive roles in the education of their children.

A revitalization of Native education programsand Native economies must occur if Native com-munities are to gain control o: their destiny. In the

18

past twenty years Native communities have estab-lished sophisticated administrative organizations.Many communities now operate factories, schools,colleges, hospitals, judicial systems, accountingdepartments and social service agencies. Such or-ganizations require skilled employees who are ableto understand the needs and desires of their com-munity and at the same time operate complexprograms according to tribal, state and federalstandards. Native communities are already hardpressed to find and employ sufficient numbers ofadequately trained Natives to staff such programs.This leaves Native governments with the choicebetween hieing an undertrained tribal member inthe hope that the employee will grow into theposition or hiring a fully trained and experiencednon-Native. Neither choice is a good one as the firstmay contribute to a poorly managed program andthe second fosters continued dependency on thenon-Native community.

Recommendations to improveservices provided to Native

communities.The recommendations that follow are not new.

They are current expressions of historicalproposals for change. In 1969 the Kennedy Reportadmonished the federal government for not follow-ing the recommendations put forth in the MeriamAssociates Report of 1926. In 1991 many of therecommendations put forth by the Kennedy Reporthave not been acted upon and now lay dormant.The recommendations presented here have beengleaned from the reports and studies mentioned inthis paper, and from the testimony of those whogathered before the INAR Task Force hearings. Aswith other recommendations they do not provide adetailed blueprint for change. Some weredeveloped with full knowledge of the presentstatutory and bureaucratic limitations they wouldencounter; others were formulated innocent ofthose barriers. None should be discarded simplybecause of a failure to meet some present revile-tion or because they are presently deemed to be notfundable. All should be considered as expressionsfor change. I will add my thoughts as a NativeAmerican and as an administrator of Native educa-tion programs.

OIE and OIEP must conduct basic re-search: There is a dire need for additionaldemographic data concerning adultAmerican Indian and Alaska Natives. Atpresent, the Indian Health Service,Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Depart-ment of Education, the U.S. Census

1 9


Bureau and other governmental agenciesemploy differing methods to collect andreport data concerning adult Natives.Thus, it is floubtful that Native govern-ments, federal officials or Congressionalrepresentatives have a clear under-standing of the problems facing Nativecommunities. Some of the best data existsat the local or tribal level. What is neededis a vehicle to bring the data together on anational scale. The data must include Na-tive participation rates in state and federalAdult Basic Education, High School Com-pletion and Vocational Training programs.The Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Depart-ment of Education and U.S. Department ofLabor must develop standardized evalua-tion instruments that reveal participantnumbers as well as the succev and thefailure rate of adult Natives enrolled intheir programs. Data collection andpresentation mustbe standardized and theresults made easily accessible to Nativecommunities. Native governments, com-munities and organizations must not beleft out of this process, but included in thedevelopment of common definitions as towho is a Native, who is a dropout, who is agraduate. A consensus must be arrived atas to what program evaluation and datacollection methods are to be employed.And, perhaps most importantly, Nativecommunities must be included in theproper use of the data. They must be in-cluded in the decision-making process thatdetermines whether or not demographicdata will be used to close down oldprograms or to enact new legislation.Indian Priority System: The Congressmust change the Indian Priority System(IPS). The IPS fails to provide Nativegovernments with meaningful input intoBIA proposed Native program budgets,and this contributes to an erosion of thebase budgets ofmany Native governments.Native governmental representativescharge that the priority system has al-lowed the BIA to subvert the intent of theIndian Reorganization Act of 1934. TheAct, which authorized the reorganizationof Native governments, also promised Na-tive governments the opportunity to com-ment on proposed Native program budgetsprior to their inclusion in the Pro dent'sBudget and submission to Congress. Thepromise was never kept. To compensate

19

the BIA developed the IPS to allow Nativeinput into the budget pi ocess. In theory,the IPS requires the BIA to develop ap-propriation budgets based on the ex-pressed program priorities of Nativegovernments. Native leaders charge thatin reality neither the proposed Bureaubudgets nor Congressional allocationsreflect Native priorities. A 1989 BIA reportstater, that many Native communitiesbelieve that participating in the IPS istantamount to participating or assisting intheir own destruction (Minneapolis AreaAgency IPS Review (Draft) Report). Thereport contends that communities holdthis belief because they mistrust the ac-tions of the Area and Central office. Thereport documents an example under IPSwhere a community established an Out-door Recreational Management Programas a high priority and budgeted $45,500 tothe program. To further enhance the pro-gram, the tribe added $50,500 from itsHigher Education Program raising thetotal program budget to $96,000. A yearlater the tribe was informed that theRecreational Program had been removedfrom the IPS and that the community'sbase budget had been reduced by $96,000.Other communities have experiencedsimilar reductions to their base fundingwhen such programs as Housing Improve-ment Program, Self-DeterminationGrants, Roads Maintenance and FisheriesManagement were taken off the IPS. Theelimination or reduction of program fund-ing is often taken, according to the report,with no advance warning to a communitynor an explanation from the Central Office.The result is an erosion of tribal basebudgets. The report surmises that suchactions convince many tribes not to par-ticipate in the process as it is better to losea little (through appropriation reductions)than to lose large amounts to programstaken off the IPS.

In 1989 the BIA began a review of IPS in ac-cordance with Public Law 100-472 (Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance ActAmendments of 1988). The review was conductedthrough regional teams made up of tribal repre-sentatives and BIA staff from Agency and Areaoffices. Each team met and identified problemswithin the system and forwarded recommenda-tions for change to the Central Office. The regionalreports were assembled at the Central office and


compiled into one report. The consolidated reportwas to be provided to Congress with recommenda-tions for change. As of yet no change to the IPS hasoccurred either at e Cer'.1 a office or communitylevel.

Developr of Model Programs: TheKennedy .. ft clearly cited the need foridentification of model adult educationprograms. The recommendation has beenrepeated, in recent times, by the NationalAdvisory Council on Indian Education, theNational Indian Education Council, theNational Indian Adult Education Associa-tion and a host of other concerned or-ganizations and associations. Funds havebeen made available to pilot, evaluate anddisseminate effective adult educationprograms through the Indian EducationAct. To date, no effective program has beenwidely disseminated.

It is recommended that OIE develop andrelease a guide outlining the basic components ofa standard adult education program. The guidemust include funding sources, recruitment techni-ques, curriculum selection, instructional techni-ques and evaluation methods. The guide should besent to those communities that fail to garnerenough points on their Subpart 3 proposals. Inaddition, the Resource and Evaluation Centersshould target a number of these communities eachyear to provide technical assistance in such areasas need assessments, program designs and evalua-tion methods. The next step would be for OIE todevelop evaluation standards to identify effectiveNative adult education programs. Once identified,a detailed summary of those programs would bedisseminated to Native communities.

Increased technical assistance to Nativecommunities: A major criticism of the dis-cretionary grant process is that themujority of the awards continually go tocommunities most able to employ or con-tract with effective grant writers. Thisleaves communities who have great needbut lack the resources to hire grant writersunable to compete. The inequity could beaddressed if ED, OIE and BIA would pro-vide these communities the technical as-sistance needed to complete a competitiveapplication. Currently there is some at-tempt to provide such assistance throughconsultants hired by the Special ProgramsBranch of the Office of Adult and Vocation-al Education Programs, and by staff mem-bers of the Resource and EvaluationCenters under contract with OIE. These

20

efforts, however, have proved ineffective.Neither agency provides little more thanhandouts and brief workshops on how todevelop competitive proposals.

Increased funds to tribal education depart-ments would allow more Native communities tohire staff with the skills to assess community needsand translate those needs into a competitiveproposal. An alternative method would be to in-crease the amount of technical assistance providedto these communities by the BIA, ED and theResource and Evaluation Centers.

Support for Tribal Education Depart-ments: Section 1142 (a) of the IndianEducation Act provides for the funding ofTribal Education Departments. The sec-tion has never been funded. Adequatefunds must be devoted to this section of thelaw. Tribal education departments benefitNative communities by allowing for thecentralization of all education programswithin one office. Adequately fundeddepartments are able to employ programadministrators, program developmentstaff and grant writers. Fully staffeddepartments can assess and translate theneeds of their communities into educationand training programs. Such fullyfunctioning education department allowNative communities to contract with theBIA for educational programs, to competefor state and federal discretionaryprograms, and to provide community con-trol over tribal education programs. Per-haps most importantly, tribal educationdepartments offer a place for communityresidents to bring their hopes and fearsconcerning their educational future andthe future of their sons and daughters.Such funding must not be limited to com-munities that operate contract or BIAschools but to all communities as 80 per-cent of the Native children attendingschool attend public schools.

MA be required to match the Carl D.Perkins Adult Education and VocationalAct Indian set-aside: Since 1977 Nativecommunities and organizations have lostmore than $100 million in vocationaleducation funds resulting from the BIA'scontinual refusal to match funds ap-propriated under the Cari D. Perkins ActIndian set-aside program. As previouslystated, the funds would have done much toimprove the funding opportunities for alarge number of Native communities and


organizations. The Congress should eitherforce the BIA to comply with the law orstrike the provision from the Act, andreplace it with another source of funding.Provisions for funding of Native programswithin the Adult Education Act and theCarl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act:The recent reauthorization ofboth Acts didnot require states to identify or address theadult education or vocational needs of Na-tive communities in the development oftheir state plans. States do not generallyfund Native community educationprograms as such programs usually lackLEA status. It is recommended that eachstate be required to determine the level ofneed present within their Native com-munities and detail how that state plans toservice the need. Such determinationswould reveal the disparity between ser-vices afforded to Native communities ver-sus those services provided to non-Nativecommunities. A comparison of the rangeand character of that disparity could beused to target additional programs andfunds to Native communities.Subpart 1 of the IEk The current direc-tion of IEA formula grant program has tobe rethought. The basic purpose of the Actwas two fold: (1) to prGvide public schooldistricts with additional tmding to developprograms to meet the special educationalneeds of Native children and (2) to includeNative parents in the planning, develop-ment and maintenance of these specialprograms. To a moderate degree the Acthas accomplished those goals. Publicschool districts have implemented someeffective programs and Native parentshave taken part in that process. The trueextent of the impact of the Act, however, isundetermined. The United States Depart-ment of Education has never permittedOIE to assess the impact of the formulagrant program. Overall program evalua-tion is either based on reports developed byLEAs or from quick and infrequent sitevisits conducted by OIE stIff. This hasallowed public school administrators toshape and control the debate concerningthe effectiveness of their programs. As aresult, the IEA formula grant program hasnot undergone any significant modificationsince it was enacted in 1973.

Current legislation prevents Native govern-ments from officially participating in the decision-

21

making process of the formula programs. As aresult, school district officials compete with layparents to set the LEA's special program agenda.The competition is unfair. Native parents are oftenintimidated by the professionalism of LEA staffand fail to challenge or alter programs establishedby the school district. Parent committees are whol-ly dependent on the LEA to explain the rules andregulations governing the formula grant program.Such intimidation and dependency forces mostcommittees to surrender their decision-makingauthority to the school district's perception of theeducation needs of the Native community. Parentcommittees within such environments often be-come non-players in the design, development andevaluation of formula programs.

Any recommendation for change must be basedon the achievements of the IEA. Current datareveals that while the IEA formula grant programis not an outright failure, it has not lived up to theexpectations of its designers. Native children stillsuffer the highest dropout rate of any Americanethnic group. In comparison to other populations,Native people suffer some of the highest unemploy-ment rates and lowest living conditions. If the IEAwas designed eighteen years ago to lessen theseconditions, it has failed. Change must occur.

The IEA should be amended to allow one orsome combination of the followinr allow Nativegovernments that reside within a school districtthe first opportunity to contract for IEA formulagrant funding or expand the Parent Committeemembership to include Native governmental rep-resentatives.

Allowing Native communities to contract IEAformula grant programs would be in the spirit ofIndian Self-Determination. It would provide Na-tive governments with another resource to combatthe educational problems within their com-munities. Tribal education departments could beexpanded; additional funds could be used hireeducation counselors, tutors, and administrators.Strengthened education departments would bemore able to contract BIA education programs andcompete for discretionary education grants. All ofthis would allow Native governments to betterpromote the value of education to Native students,parents and families making Native com-munities less dependent on outside agencies toresolve their internal problems. The change wouldnot drastically alter IEA services. Parent commit-tees would retain their authority to take part inprogram selection and development, most of IEAservices would continue to be conducted during theschool day and within a clessroom, and schooldistricts with significant Native populations but


lacking the residence of a Native governmentwould continue to contract the formula grant prgram.

If the above recommendation is not acted upon,then IEA Parent Cominittee eligibility require-ments must be expanded to allow Nativegovernmental designates to become voting mem-bers. The current system requires input only fromNative parents not the Native community. Addingtribal designates would enhance communicationsbetween LEAs and Native governments. As aresult, the LEA would be confronted, in manycases, with a professional Native educator or ad-ministrator fully able to understand the pos-sibilities and limitations of the formula grantprogram. The change would add a needed checkand balance to the formula grant program.

Subpart 3 of the IEA: To fully implementthe goals of Subpart 3 of the IEA, addition-al funding is required, the discretionaryaward process must be reorganized,literacy programs must be expanded, andadditional technical assistance must beprovided to Native communities seeking toestablish adult education programs.

The current funding level has not adequatelyserved the apressed needs of Native communitiesand organizations as evidenced by the number ofquality applications turned down each year be-cause of a lack offunding. However, the amount ofthe increase cannot be determined until ED con-ducts research to define the width and breadth ofthe need for adult education programs. Recommen-dations that simply propose doubling or triplingSubpart 3 appropriations are welcomed, but theylack the support of need-based research andprobably will not be accepted by OMB or Congress.

OIE should set aside discretionary funds toestablish literacy programs. The targeted fundswould provide for the establishment of low levelreading and writing instructional programs. Theset-aside is needed because the current systemshas produced few if any IEA literacy programs.

The discretionary award process must bereviewed. In theory the current process, ad-ministered by OIE and overseen by the NationalAdvisory Council on Indian Education, provides astatistically objective method to award grants tothe best proposals. In actuality, however, theprocess breaks down as OIE has never been able toattract enough qualified Native readers and, attimes, has failed to follow its own rules and regula-tions regarding the scoring method and number ofreaders per panel. The reading process at OIE isno different than the process required by other EDdiscretionary programs which probably draw the

22

same criticism. Therefore, it is recommended thatOIE simply monitor the process closer to assurereader competency and scoring objectivity. Agrievance process should be added for applicantswho feel they lost the competition unfairly. Ap-plications that fail to garner enough points to gainfunding should be returned to applicants with theReader's scores and comments. The Resource andEvaluation Centers should provide euch applicantswith technical assistance to strengthen their grantwriting abilities.

Support to Tribal community colleges andvocational institutions: The Adult Educa-tion Act and the Carl D. Perkins Act shouldbe amended to include formula funding toNative colleges and vocational institu-tions. States should also be encouraged todevelop supportive systems that wouldenable Native colleges and trainingcenters to stabilize their funding basealong side other state institutions.The United States Department of Labor,ED, OIE, OIEP, and other federal andstate agencies mustjoin forces with Nativegovernments to enhance the economies ofNative communities: It is clear that adulteducation and training programs functionbest when they are tied to expanding orstable economies. It is equally clear thatsuch programs often fail when forced tooperate in a depressed or failing economy.Employed graduates make the bestrecruiters; unemployed graduates spreadthe word that the program is a failure.

ReferencesAd Hoc Committee on National Indian Vocational

Education (1989). Summary report: NationalIndian vocational education needs analysis1988-89. David Gipp. Committee Coordinator.3315 University Drive, Bismarck, ND. 58504.

Brod, R.L. and McQuiston, J.M. (1981). The statusof educational attainment and performance ofadult American Indians and Alaska Natives:Philadelphia, MS: National Indian Mandge-ment Service of American. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service, No. ED 237 249).

Bureau of Indian Affairs (1988). Report on BIAeducation: Final Review Draft Excellence inIndian Education through the

Byron, B.R. (1988 Summer). A program planningas technology in three adult education or-ganizations. Adult Education Quarterly, 38 (4)211-223.

.) 3


Dennis, H. C. (1977). The American Indian 1492-1976. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceans Publica-tions, Inc.

Effective School Process. Washington DC: U.S.Government. Printing Office.

Fey, F. E. & McNidde, D. (1970). Indians & otherAmericans: Two ways of life meet. New Yorkand Evanbton: Harper and Row.

Hbgan, K T., (1961). American Indians. Chicagoand London: The University Press.

Hall, P.R. and Hackbert, P.H. (1977). Literacy andeducation among Indians in Oklahoma. Nor-man, OK. University of Oklahoma (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service, No. ED 136 381)

Hodgkinson, H.L. (1990). The demographics ofAmerican Indians: one percent of the people;My percent of the diversity.

Knowles, M.S. (1985). Andragogy in action. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kazol, J. (1985). Illiterate America. Garden City,New York: Anchor Press/Double Day.

National Advisory Council on Indian Education(1989). Educating the American Indian I AlaskaNative family: 16th annual report to congress.Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

National Advisory Council on Indian Education(1988). Building front yesterday to tomorrow:15th Annual Report to Congress. WashingtonDC: Government Printing Office.

Pelavin Associates, Inc. (1984). An evaluation ofthe Indian Education Act, Title IV, Part C:

education for Indian adults. Washington DC:Education Analysis Center for EducationQuality and Equality.

Tippeconnic III, J.W. (1990). Adult education in amulticultural society. (pp. 78-95). London andNew York, Routledge.

United States Senate (1969). Indian education: Anational tragedy A national challenge. Com-mittee on Labor and Public Welfare, SpecialSubcommittee on Indian Education.

United States Department of the Interior. Creatinga framework for progress. Draft report.. 1989.

Washington DC: Institute for Educational Leader-ship.

United States Census Bureau. (1990, February)Characteristics of American Indians by tribeand selected areas. U.S. Department of Com-merce. Washington DC: Government PrintingOffice.

About the AuthorJohn Hatch is the education director for the

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians andresides with his wife in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.His experience includes serving as the projectdirector for the Sault Ste. Marie Adult Educationprogram, providing training and technical assis-tance to Indian Education Act grantees in the IEACenter One region, and reporting for a newspaper.

= 1\1 D

U.S. Dept. of Education

Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement (0ERI)

Limo . - iDate Filmed

August 8, 1992

ED 343 773 RC Ole 632 · 2014. 4. 9. · DOCUMEM RESUME ED 343 773 RC Ole 632 AUTHOR Hatch, John...

Documents

Transcript of ED 343 773 RC Ole 632 · 2014. 4. 9. · DOCUMEM RESUME ED 343 773 RC Ole 632 AUTHOR Hatch, John...